December 21, 2007

The star, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, has gone and gotten herself pregnant by her boyfriend, the 19-year-old Casey Aldridge. (There's also the question whether you think society would be better off if the baby's father were imprisoned for 10 years for statutory rape.) David Hinckley writes:

[I]f Nickelodeon keeps Spears on its airwaves, the network will seem to be saying that unmarried teen pregnancy, a major American problem, is negotiable if the unmarried teen is a good earner....

It's not that Nickelodeon has ever lived in some '50s sitcom world where kids never face tough issues like sex. Spears' character in "Zoey" has faced them herself.

But Nick, unlike many other media, doesn't wink at ill-advised behavior or ignore its potential consequences, and that's what the current Spears flurry is really about: consequences.

All 16-year-olds make mistakes. They all need forgiveness, from others and themselves. But forgiveness does not erase consequences, and Jamie Lynn doesn't get a pass because she was unbelievably stupid, even allowing for the fact brains don't run in her family.

Wait. What's "unbelievably stupid" here? Having sex when only 16, not acing birth control, or failing to have an abortion?

It also doesn't excuse her that she has little experience with consequences, though it's true. First, there's her sister. Second, there's her mother, who got a contract from a Christian publishing house for a book on parenting while her older daughter was turning into an international poster girl for lunatic hedonism.

Is this a moral principle you want to apply across the board? Extra punishment for offenses committed by individuals whose family members have committed similar offenses? Why not extra forgiveness?

ADDED: Lots of comments inside. Let me add a few things. First, you don't know how careless she was about birth control (or whether she chose to get pregnant). Pregnancy can happen to any fertile woman who does not practice abstinence. If you insist on harsh consequences, what are you doing? You may push some young women into abstinence, but you will push others toward abortion. I'm all for teen abstinence, but I also believe in looking at the world that is and being practical and compassionate. They made some mistakes. So did you. So did your kids.

As the parent of a 10-year old who is impressed with what these teen stars do on and off the stage, I just want Nickelodeon to get her off the screen. If her audience was older, I might have a different view.

She was unbelievably stupid (and it does seem to run in the family) for having unprotected sex at age 16. I feel sorry for everyone involved, especially for the new baby about to be born. However, I don’t want Nickelodeon to facilitate her continued promotion as a role model for pre-teens.

If she did anything stupid, it was having sex out of wedlock. There's plenty of that stupidity, if stupidity it is, going around among people who are plenty older. The fact that she's 16 doesn't change that, except perhaps to mitigate any blame people might be inclined to put on her. People who are younger are generally a little stupider than people who are older. Nevertheless, I can understand why Nickelodeon might want to cancel the show.

The worst possible economic arrangement, the one most likely to lead to poverty, is single motherhood. (Pregnancy out of wedlock counts here, regardless of any supposed plans otherwise.)

But our society is no longer able to attach shame to this condition, or really to anything at all. Shame was the primary punishment for such girls in the past, and the boys were prosecuted, if they met the statutory rape age limit, or forced to marry, and all families involved felt shamed.

Not anymore."In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying."**

The question is a fundamental one: do we actually believe that the traditional nuclear family is, as research suggests, the best method by which to raise children, or not? Or are we content with a lesser arrangement, wherein single mothers are married to the state, cared for by welfare and "Universal Pre-K and daycare"?

If we cannot use stigma to rein in unwanted behaviors, then we will reap what we sow. Forgiveness is one thing, honoring behavior that is deletirious is quite another. It is the hard work of adults to punish children when we don't want them to suffer at all, but for their own good and for the long run.

But I believe we are unable to do this anymore. We no longer have the strength to live out our virtues, which serve merely as suggestions, or even one among many acceptable alternatives.

Not sure what you mean Ann but obviously she didn't read the "abstinence-only" literature (or couldn't).

I would suggest that Casey could be in a fair amount of trouble and i believe there isn't a distinction made between consenting or not at 16 in most states. Someone is sure to be bent out of shape about this because in the end this will be about money, not sex, revenues and image, and not the kid(s).

My issue is holding up a teenage mom-to-be as a role model for pre-teen girls. There is lots of data to show that when a teenage girl becomes a mom, she dashes her chances of finishing school, getting a good, etc. And the outlook for the baby is even more grim.

Sure, Jamie-Lynn may have plenty of money to support the child and still work. But what about all the viewers, all the girls who may begin to think having a baby at age 16 is cool.

Jamie should resign from the show and find some other media outlet for herself. Or something.

Also, as it appears Ann grabbed a lot of this from people magazine (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20167191,00.html) it is good to note that Casey is 19 and seemingly unemployed other than accompanying Jamie Lynn to play practice and hopes to start a business or go to school someday..kid sounds like a real "rock" doesn't he?

I'm not sure what my feelings would have been if some 19 year old had knocked up my daughter when she was 16 but "adore him" wouldn't be on the list.

Can someone tell me why, in this age of easily availablity, not to mention, numerous varieties of birth control, why the hell kids still manage to get knocked up? I mean I grew up in a strict Catholic home plus went to Catholic school for 12 years and even I knew what a condom was for and how to use it (even though I couldn't stand the smell of burning rubber).

If the Baby's Dad isn't charged with statutory rape, then why does the law exist on the books? Since this is Louisiana, I'll say that it's in case they catch a black 19-year-old with a 16-yo white girl. But two white kids screwing? Nothing to see here. Let's move along.

I see I didn't answer the question. Should the program be cancelled? No. I think they should bring in a new star -- there must be plenty of talented girls who want to do it -- and Jamie Lynn can show up occasionally, with kid in tow. She should become progressively poorer and fatter as time goes by in the show and end up in real squalor while the new star of the show -- without a kid -- goes to college and pursues her dreams.

I think people who seek stigmatize young, unmarried pregnancy so much are thinking the stigma will lead to fewer people willing to engage in young, unmarried sex, but in reality, I think the more likely effect is to encourage the young and pregnant to just have an abortion and keep quiet about the whole affair.

"pregnancy, a major American problem, is negotiable if the unmarried teen is a good earner...."

I'd prefer to see the show pulled, but if they could translate the above into "it's OK to have kids if you can afford them, not OK if you can't", it wouldn't be the end of the world. Perhaps economic argument will work where moral argument has failed.

"I'm not sure Zoey 101's writers (if any) can deal with this within the program so that point may resolve itself"

Zoey 101: The Next Generation - Ms. Spears subsists on ramen noodles and Minute Rice in a tiny section eight apartment while trying to garnish some back child support from her boyfriend's Burger King paycheck. A teaching moment if there ever was one.

If the Baby's Dad isn't charged with statutory rape, then why does the law exist on the books? Since this is Louisiana, I'll say that it's in case they catch a black 19-year-old with a 16-yo white girl. But two white kids screwing? Nothing to see here. Let's move along.

Not sure where this is coming from. Are you referring to the Wilson case where the the black 17 year old who was jailed for getting the blowjob from the 15 year old? Actually, if I recall correctly, he was charged under Georgia's sodomy law and not statutory rape. I believe consensual sex between minors is not an offense so had they been doing the traditional horozontal mambo, there would have been no foul.

Do we know that she had unprotected sex? I thought the abstinence-only message was that any method of birth control can fail.

Fair point, since she hasn’t done her obligatory tell-all interview yet. At that time, we’ll learn more details about the reasons for her stupidity. (Going out on a limb here.)

I would be a bit surprised to hear anyone arguing that teenagers having babies today, especially out of wedlock, is a positive thing for our society in the way it might have been for many years before recent times.

Why the concern about high schoolers reading “Romeo & Juliet”? It’s likely that most teenagers educated sufficiently to understand Shakespeare have a better understanding than pre-teens of events within their historical context and of complex moral issues.

I think they should keep the show on and replace her. Its not like there aren't a dillion other teen actresses dying for their chance.

She'll probably drop a CD the day after baby's born and be well on her way. Sigh.

And, I don't think the author of the quoted article is calling for "extra punishment for offenses committed by individuals whose family members have committed similar offenses" I think he's raising those issues as almost mitigiating circumstances.

As far as the statutory rape thing goes, I think the suggestion is ridiculous. If he can be prosecuted for this relationship, then her parents should be as well. They were every bit as aware of the circumstances and presumably shoulder more reponsibility. And I'm pretty sure the guy is 18, not 19. Or at least was 18 three months ago when the child was conceived.

Sorry, Hoosier. I got confused too. There are two Georgia cases, (1) the Wilson case that you cite correctly as being prosecuted under the sodomy law for a same-sex encounter and (2) the case of Marcus Dixon, who also got ten years in Georgia under the statutory rape law for a heterosexual sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 19. I was thinking of the latter.

While I usually agree with Ann on many issues, this isn't one of them.

A few loose points:

1). We don't know the age of Mary when she had Jesus. While it's likely that she was indeed young, its just inflammatory to throw in the line that this is the time that "we celebrate the birth of a child to a 14-year-old girl". Christmas isn't the time we celebrate the pregnancy of a 14 year old, its the time we celebrate the birth of Christ. And most Christians believe the mother was a virgin, a charge not levied toward the Spears clan.

2) Most parents of pre-teen who scorn this event aren't doing so directly to kick Spears when she is down, but rather to express upset that another one of or pre-teen children's idol has caused us to have conversations with our children at a time deemed premature to us. My nine year old has already had to see three idols fall down like this: Lindsey Lohan, Vanessa Hudgens, and now Jamie Lynn Spears. My daughter will be grown all her life, in this sliver of time she has left in childhood, must she be taught the lesson that teens learn pretty quickly, that even your hero's have faults? It's a good lesson to learn, but I'd like for her to not become jaded to the world just yet.

3) Ann, the smack against abstinence education is really offensive in that it is such a red herring.

4) Why we should tolerate sex between 19 year olds and 16 year olds is beyond me. There is a huge difference in age and maturity. Absolutely the 19 year is a predator. Ten years for this predation? I don't know, but the baby conceived could live to be 100.

5) The audience of Zoey 101 is not the same audience as high school Romeo and Juliet. And you know that Ann. You're just being offensive to draw the connection.

6) My whole life has been trying to shield my children from the sexualization of youth. I grew up in a different time (and I'm just 36). Ann, you're older than my mother (who had me when she was 19), and while you were part of the sexual revolution, that doesn't prepare you for the perspective parents of young children have now a days.

Frankly, you're snarkiness this morning sounded a lot like reading a Christopher Hitchens article. The world will only permit one Christopher Hitchens.

The most -- would vulgar be a good adjective here? -- disgusting thing is how Britney's and Jamie's Mom whores them out for publicity. So total agreement with Jennifer re: the Ok! deal. Momma Spears apparently had children solely to make money off of them. In another line of work she'd be called a pimp. As it is she's just a stage mother gone amok.

Anyone who compares this situation to the birth of Christ, or Romeo and Juliette is really out there. This is the year of our lord 2007, and a sixteen year old girl getting pregnant is not a good thing. Of couse it happens, but that still doesnt make it a good thing. Of course, this will keep our voyeur TV personality cult busy for the next 7 months, so maybe its an overall plus for ratings and advertising.Right...........

There was a time in this country where a 16 year old preganacy would have been unremarkable.

Oh? Really? Exactly when was that commonplace tsunami of unmarried 16-year old mothers pushing their baby budgies up and down the halls at the high school? I'm trying to remember, but, drat, it must be that Alzheimers thingie.

I know this much. My 6-year old granddaughter is a regular Zoey 101 viewer, and she heard the breathless the news shouted out on the news channel. She is now a veritable font of questions on a subject that at this point in her life she shouldn't be.

I don't have kids, and I think that at least until Spears' pregnancy is over, the show should be put on hiatus. I don't subscribe to the notion that everyone in the entertainment industry who has children out of wedlock sets a "bad example" to teens. Teens don't relate to, oh, say, Goldie Hawn having kids with Kurt Russell. But when they see someone within spitting distance of their own age being pregnant, I'm not sure they understand that it's one thing to be pregnant at sixteen when you and your family are already raking in dough through the tabloid-tainment industry and quite another when you are an ordinary kid for whom motherhood may mean not being able to finish high school, let alone go to college and become an adult the way it's done in our society. Spears has every right to decide how to deal with her pregnancy, but she does not have a right to be the star of a television show aimed at teens.

What this SHOULD be is the perfect springboard to open the doors to communication between parents and their children about sex and pregnancy.

Maybe it's just the season or something, but it's very comforting to find something of yours I can competely agree with:

"What is also dismaying is that when production people search around in the talent pool they keep coming up with members of this family."

And I see by your 7:14 and 7:23 comments that you're really on a roll this morning. Keep up the good work!

Pogo,

No kidding about the loss of stigma. Not just on this type of situation, as you point out, but everywhere. But it's not quite true that we have replace all stigma with nothing; the other response is to criminalize things to an excessive degree. Both tendencies are bad for society.

My parents were both 16 when I was born, and got married a couple months before I made my grand entrance. In our case things turned out pretty tragically, and my younger brother and I were raised by our aunt and uncle. I'm sure our parents' youth contributed to the way things turned out, but they didn't have to turn out the way they did. Free will was involved. In general marriage is a stabilizing influence, and perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if that stability came younger in a person's life more often than it does nowadays. The typical college student might do better rather than worse and even be happier with a little extra stability. (Not to mention that the idea that college is necessary to lead a productive and financially rewarding life is a misconception, and to the extent that it is true we can thank in large part various government occupational licensing schemes.) If so many people weren't passing out so much free sex, maybe young people wouldn't be overwhelmed by the sense that they'd be missing out by marrying too early.

Most parents of teen and pre-teen girls are very protective of their daughters' innocence. Consequently, watch the ratings for this show drop like a stone. I imagine Miss Spears also has her own line of clothing and personal accessories. Sales for those will dry up as well.

You can debate it all you want, and tut-tut about how judgmental we all are, etc., but money talks and BS walks. Zoey 101 is toast.

Conduct is conduct. People are responsible for what they do. The question should be the response to Nick if they take action or don't.

It is not up to us to judge her conduct- that is up to her parents. It is up to Nick to decide if the publicity will damage their product. Seriously, will the world be destroyed by global warming if Zoey is cancelled?

What's "unbelievably stupid" here? Having sex when only 16, not acing birth control

Having unprotected sex at age 16 after your older sister has ALREADY ruined her career by having unprotected sex and getting knocked up certainly qualifies as "stupid" in my book. I have to disagree with the "unbelievably" part, though, since it is entirely believable that a member of the Spears family would do that.

God should fire Mary in light of the bad example she sets for Fundamentalists. There still are people all over the world praying themselves into hypnosis over her, for Christ's sake!

There are some observations that need to be made here: First of all, to prosecute the putative father, the state has to show that prohibited sex took place within its jurisdiction, pretty hard to do if the actors won't testify. Secondly, the best way to get rid of stupid laws is to prosecute the high and mighty for violating them. Third, a sexually mature person has the human right to sex and to choose willing sex partners of whatever sex or age, state laws notwithstanding. Fourth, sex is good, like eating, urinating, defecating and other natural bodily functions, and nobody of any age can be hurt or ruined by it. The hurt comes from the superstition and fear that the christianists transmit to their children. The pope could make the eating of fish, pork or shellfish as "ruinous" as sex by mere edict, and the jews can do the same thing, and mutilate infants besides, and they don't even need to consult a pope!

Fifty-one years ago, an eighteen year old high school athlete had sex with a 16 year old teen age from a prominent family. She conceived and had the child. They married, subsequently divorced, and remarried others.

Today, both are successful in all outward respects and have children and grandchildren, in spite of the event which brought consternation and shame to their respective families.

The man went on to get a PhD and to become chairman of the board of a number of successful businesses.

I know this because they were my high school classmates.

The point of this is that even in the days of "shaming", people with love and support of families and friends, people dealt with these situations in constructive ways.

I don't know what a "Christianist" is, but if it is one who professes to be a Christian while acting precisely the opposite and not caring about the incongruity, I agree with you.

Sex is good; but it can carry adverse physical and emotional consequences after orgasm. Unless one is prepared to deal with that adversity, it might be well to consider how and when to indulge in the act.

Yes, the exception tests the rule. But it is indiputable that such results are in fact the exception still.

Why We Don’t Marryby James Q. Wilson"Almost everyone—a few retrograde scholars excepted—agrees that children in mother-only homes suffer harmful consequences: the best studies show that these youngsters are more likely than those in two-parent families to be suspended from school, have emotional problems, become delinquent, suffer from abuse, and take drugs. Some of these problems may arise from the economic circumstances of these one-parent families, but the best studies, such as those by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, show that low income can explain, at most, about half of the differences between single-parent and two-parent families. The rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband....How did stigma get weakened by practice and undercut by law, when Americans—no less than Brits, Canadians, and Australians—favor marriage and are skeptical of welfare?

Let me suggest that beneath the popular support for marriage there has slowly developed, almost unnoticed, a subversion of it, which can be summarized this way: whereas marriage was once thought to be about a social union, it is now about personal preferences. Formerly, law and opinion enforced the desirability of marriage without asking what went on in that union; today, law and opinion enforce the desirability of personal happiness without worrying much about maintaining a formal relationship. Marriage was once a sacrament, then it became a contract, and now it is an arrangement. Once religion provided the sacrament, then the law enforced the contract, and now personal preferences define the arrangement....This fact supplies us with a sober lesson: the sexual revolution—one that began nearly a century ago but was greatly hastened by the 1960s—was supposed to help make men and women equal. Instead it has helped men, while leaving many women unmarried spectators watching Sex and the City on HBO....The right and best way for a culture to restore itself is for it to be rebuilt, not from the top down by government policies, but from the bottom up by personal decisions. On the side of that effort, we can find churches—or at least many of them—and the common experience of adults that the essence of marriage is not sex, or money, or even children: it is commitment."

1900s through the 1950s, when shame was in fact commonly applied, and unwed motherhood ... was eliminated because of shotgun weddings.

The abstinence-only culture prevents preparation for sex far more effectively than it prevents sex itself. Horny teenagers who are IN LOVE will do what horny teenagers have been doing forever. Unprotected sex is a crime of passion; taking birth control or buying condoms is premeditated sex.

Discussing this, a friend of mine recalled this happened up in Wisconsin well into the sexual revolution. In small rural towns, everyone was afraid everyone would find out that they were taking birth control pills or buying comdoms. If Betty Sue's dad found out that you, Betty Sue's boyfriend, were buying condoms, you'd never see Betty Sue again. (If you weren't plowing Betty Sue, you'd have to be cheating on her.)

By the way, I hope no high schools are allowing their students to read "Romeo and Juliet."

Funny you should mention this. When I was in high school the school had a performance of Romeo and Juliet. I was good friends with most of the cast, including Romeo. He and Juliet apparently took up their parts with zeal and committed to extra rehearsals outside of the normal schedule.

She became pregnant, something realized a month or two after the performance. She also dropped out of school. He was responsible for child support.

The problem I see it now is we're making this a culture war sort of thing, a free-love battle of generations ago. Get over the sex part, I say.

Jamie Lynn Spears is wealthy. No big deal. She can hire nannies and care takers, and tutors. She doesn't feel the weight.

Talk to any woman who had a baby at 16. I know more than a few. All of them regret it. All of them feel like they were taken advantage of in a time in which they were desperate to find love.

That's the other problem with so many conversations about sex. By making it about the act we completely dismiss the psychological issues that might be happening. Britney has illustrated these, and not for the best of her babies. Her actions, and likely those of her sister, are not of carefully considered life moments. Nor are they the result of cultural patterns of arranged marriages where the baby enters into a world of enforced responsibility (as what happened with Mary).

These are troubled kids making troubled decisions that affect other lives. That's the foundation for sexual ethics.

Because while Jamie Lynn is wealthy most of her audience is not, and if they follow her model or think that it's okay they will entirely and radically affect the rest of their lives, and almost always in a way that destroys their potential future.

Parents who are upset are parents who don't want to raise their own grandchildren. They are parents who want the best for their children, to send them off to college, to marry a successful loving mate, to be fulfilled in their own childhood and adulthood.

As for forgiveness... that's not really for us to do. She didn't do anything to me and it's hubris to think I can either judge or forgive her. I can wish for her best, as I do, and also wish that others don't make the mistakes she did, for the sake of their lives. I can also do my part to help build communities where sex isn't seen as the only source of validation and acceptance.

Horny teenagers who are IN LOVE will do what horny teenagers have been doing forever.

Bullshit.From The First Measured Century(see chart page 71)Premarital Sexual ActivityPercentage of 19-year-old unmarried white women with sexual experience**1900 = 6%**1991 = 74%**2002 = 95%"...at the beginning of the century, most American women entered their first marriages as virgins. At the end of the century, about one-quarter of them did. ... But from 1900 to 1960, the increase in premarital sex occurred at the same time as a drop in the average age of first marriage."

Our society has extended "childhood" into ridiculous extremes. Some people are even trying to excuse the murder of a 7 year old by a 16 and 17 year old by saying that their minds are not yet developed at that age..... BULL http://www.ripten.com/2007/12/20/two-teens-kill-7-year-old-girl-with-supposed-mortal-kombat-moves/

The human race is biologically designed to have children and take on adult responsibilities beginning in the early teen years. You are SUPPOSED to have children when you are young. Not when you are in your 40's. That has been the pattern for hundreds of thousands of years. My parent were 17 and 18 years old when I was born. That was a normal age to have children in those days. As a result when I was a grown woman, they were still young people able to enjoy life.

We (as a society) have decided that humans are children all the way up the the age of 25. We don't expect them to take on responsibilities and excuse childish behavior long after in most societies they would have been productive citizens for at least a decade. So we have the biological imperative of breed or die conflicting with society's rules. No wonder we are so conflicted with teen pregnancy.

Should she be dropped from the show? Probably. I actually like MM's idea of allowing her to be on the show and show the difficulties and biological progression of a teen pregnancy in this "current" society. That'll learn 'em.

My parents were both 16 when I was born, and got married a couple months before I made my grand entrance. In our case things turned out pretty tragically, and my younger brother and I were raised by our aunt and uncle. I'm sure our parents' youth contributed to the way things turned out, but they didn't have to turn out the way they did. Free will was involved. In general marriage is a stabilizing influence, and perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if that stability came younger in a person's life more often than it does nowadays. The typical college student might do better rather than worse and even be happier with a little extra stability. (Not to mention that the idea that college is necessary to lead a productive and financially rewarding life is a misconception, and to the extent that it is true we can thank in large part various government occupational licensing schemes.) If so many people weren't passing out so much free sex, maybe young people wouldn't be overwhelmed by the sense that they'd be missing out by marrying too early.

Pogo, the problem with that six percent figure, back in those days if you weren't married by the age of 19 you had to be pretty ugly. Which obviously influences the possibility of any sexual activity. :)

A lot of thoughts here, but the first one is that there is a lot of correlation between those who condemn this and who oppose the extension of SCHIPS to 25 year olds, and, of course, the opposite.

The question is when does childhood end and adulthood begin? The two parents-to-be are reasonably mature sexually, and he is likely at about his sexual peak. Yet, for good reasons I think, society is pushing up the age of marriage and kids as education becomes ever more important in determining life success.

Pogo, your source first states a number of caveats about pre-1950 sexual activity data, then attempts to sweep them all away with a "Nevertheless" that I find to be unconvincing. People living in a period of sexual repression are simply not going to speak frankly about their sexual activity to curious strangers.Large-scale research about sexual activity in the United States did not begin until Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, and a companion volume about females published in 1953. Before that time, the subject had been in the closet. Thus, most of the quantitative information about sexual activity in America during the first half of the century is based on retrospective interviewswith middle-aged and older people. To make matters worse, some of Kinsey’s sampling methods and interpretations were questionable.After the Kinsey era, research about sexual activity flourished. In Kiss and Tell: Surveying Sex in the Twentieth Century, Julia Ericksen refers to hundreds of sex surveys. But as she points out, this collective effort was impeded by ideological conflicts, linguistic ambiguities, unrepresentative samples, and the tendency of ordinary people to give less than truthful answers about sensitive matters.

Well there was a time when a 16-17 year old was expected to take a leading role in being a wage earner in a household and getting married at that age wasn't anything out of the ordinary. A high school education much less a college one was a rarity and getting a paying job was expected.

Nowadays, we infantalize 25-30 year olds in how we refer to our 'children' fighting in Iraq or living at home with mom and dad in your 20s.

If you were 20 still living with your parents say, 40-50 years ago, you were either an invalid being taken care or vice versa.

Looking at it now from a parental point of view, I would definitely keep any daughter of mine younger than Jamie from watching Zoey. Heck, I am someone who forbade Barney until about age six due to the apparent forced politically correct racial mix (though Sesame Street was just fine because it didn't appear to be by the numbers).

I have been lucky to have offspring on whom logic works. Therefore, I have always been up front with this sort of thing, explaining that I was not allowing the watching of this because Jamie Lynn was a bad role model. But said offspring have been hearing for a long time about good and bad role models, so this would not come as a big surprise.

I would then go on and explain that almost all girls in Jamie Lynn's situation ruin their lives by doing this. She might not, because she can likely buy her way out of the problems that will arise, but most of the middle school girls watching her show don't have the money to do the same.

And yes, as a parent, I have seen the show, and am not sure that they can pull off replacing her.

The descendants of the Scotch-Irish, or Ulster Scots, have a tradition of early fooling around. Consider one Loretta Webb:She was married to Oliver Vanetta Lynn, commonly known as "Doolittle", "Doo", or "Mooney" (for moonshine), on January 10, 1948, a few months before she turned 14.[4] In an effort to break free of the coal mining industry, Lynn moved to Custer, Washington, with her husband, at the age of 14. The Lynns had four children by the time Loretta was 17 and she was a grandmother at age 29.

Let me clarify my last point. Jamie Lynn would be a high schooler if she went to school. I don't know if she does or doesn't but would not be surprised by private tutoring - a lot of the kid stars do that for any number of reasons.

My point is that her audience is likely middle school girls, though I do know that a lot of high schoolers do watch too. It is the message to the middle schoolers and younger that is the question here.

Danny, with TV and movies it can be a bit different. Morals clauses are still written into contracts. Sometimes appearance changes while under contract are forbidden. A contract can call for the actor/actress to not change hairstyle, cut, color. Sickeningly, contracts can even call for the actor/actress to maintain a certain weight...

So, if there are any such clauses in Jamie Lynn's contract, she can be fired even though she's pregnant.

Tim Sisk - Why we should tolerate sex between 19 year olds and 16 year olds is beyond me. There is a huge difference in age and maturity. Absolutely the 19 year is a predator. Ten years for this predation? I don't know, but the baby conceived could live to be 100.

Stupid because you are describing a "crime" that is unprosecutable given tens of millions of below 18 teens do it - unless the 16-year old's parents and the courts see the older one as a definite predator (the Georgia case was influenced by the black guy not dating her and nailing her in an opportunistic tryst when alcohol and drugs were given to the 16 year old)

The younger Spears is dumb, but moralists would not be in a high lather against her if she had just gone out and quietly had the kid legally whacked. They wouldn't have known. No calls against her for moral turpitude, no calls to cancel her show.

As Gharie said, we have messed up our social norms in America enormously. WE sexualize 16-year olds as objects of desire because our brains are hardwired with biological knowledge that 16-18 is the best time for fertile females to have a healthy fetus and survive childbirth in absence of modern intervention medicine. At the same time, we tell those hotties and young studs full of hormones that they are in an extended childhood and should avoid sex, if they wish to be considered "good human beings".

And riddled the process with perverse disincentives for the smartest and most productive citizens to reproduce and rewarded non-contributing or marginally contributing trash sectors of our society for reproducing early and often. Ending up with lifetime parasite black grandmothers pregant with their 8th welfare baby at age 29 while celebrating the birth of their 1st "grandchilluns" and celebrating only 3 of their own chilluns is in jail. Ending up with desperate 40-year old female executives shopping around for doctors that can make some "miracle baby" spring up in their old, unused wombs that won't have Down's syndrome or other late-pregnancy genetic issues - who non-breed people like themselves out of existence for "career excitement and growth."

Solutions, to high reproduction of undesirable portions of the population, low reproductive rates of the intelligent, the morality of teen relationships is complex and may of necessity have to be done in a non-democratic way to best order a state and it's society for the future and prevent it's decay, as Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore said. Singapore is in the same bind as the US, as the cream of their society has a birth dearth while the trash were producing excessive babies and burdening the taxpayers and causing a slide in the average talent and ability of Singapores citizens to compete in the future. Even in an authoritarian-democrat state though, governmental solutions have not worked too well as powerful economic and social reasons still push high-performers away from having families, and encouraging the trash element with welfare no one has the heart to do away with and changing moral acceptance.

The problem with Pogo's statistics is not that they are incorrect, but that they don't really show what I think he probably means.

The likely reason that most 19 year old single women were still virgins a 100 years ago is that the non-virgins were already married, and that was a decided majority of them. Indeed, probably most of them.

So, without good birth control and easily accessible abortion, the girls who screwed around would get pregnant, and then be married off, pronto, most often in time to legitimize the kids on the way, i.e., a "shot gun wedding".

But that worked just fine back then. Likely both families lived right by the young couple, and the extended family would make sure it worked. A 17 year old boy doesn't need a high school education to run a plow, just the strength he was growing into. And his 16 year old bride doesn't need as much in parenting skills with her mother and his taking an active role in the parenting.

Not sure what you mean Ann but obviously she didn't read the "abstinence-only" literature (or couldn't).

That was my first thought when I heard this story. It would be nice if the Spears kids could actually go to school and learn something instead of being put out to work for their pimps. Had she not been sent out to work every day, and apparently left to raise herself through her early teens, she might have encountered some information about abstinence, or how to use a condom or other means of birth control. I just feel sorry for her, because this is going to change the whole trajectory of her life. But given the Spears family history, maybe that will actually work out better for her. Perhaps papa and mama will have to do something to support themselves now.

My mother got pregnant at 16, and my father was 19, almost 20, at the time. Her life was never easy, and she gave up so much.

Meanwhile, the local joke is that the Spears family put the "ho" in Tangipahoa. Just thought I'd share that.

If she were to have had an abortion do you honestly think that that fact would have been shouted from the rooftops? Also, if she were to have had an abortion she wouldn't have a growing abdominal area now would she? Announcing the pregnancy since she's keeping the baby derails all the "is that a baby bump?" gossip. If she'd had an abortion, there wouldn't be a baby bump to wonder about.

Not sure of how old Jamie Lynn was when she got herself knocked up. But regardless, the chances of prosecution for statutory rape are near zero.

First, Eugene Volokh (volokh.com) has had several threads about statutory rape over the years, and the last one maybe last week. Most states make some provision for kids of somewhat similar ages, and the standard in many jurisdictions is about three years (which is what we appear to have here), and others two. I am not sure what state law would control here, but if CA, I would expect CA law to be pretty liberal here.

Secondly, I found almost a decade ago that the police were fairly unwilling to prosecute statutory rape cases, even when it is a slam dunk. In this case, the girl was almost 16, which was the magic age in AZ at the time. She got drunk at a party, passed out, and woke up to find some guy doing her. She claimed rape, and he claimed consent. He was 10 years older, so statutory rape was slam dunk. Between a physical exam and the sheets, it was easy to show sex, but not garden variety rape beyond a reasonable doubt. So, no prosecution.

Ending up with lifetime parasite black grandmothers pregant with their 8th welfare baby at age 29 while celebrating the birth of their 1st "grandchilluns" and celebrating only 3 of their own chilluns is in jail.

Geez, Ann, at least "jeweejew" never attempts "dialect" in making a point. As long as Cedarford comments here, your "troll" policing has no credibility at all.

If a 6-year-old is being affected by this news, the fault lies not with Jamie Lynn Spears, but with some questionable judgment on the part of the child's parents.

Likewise, if a 9-year-old has been affected by the crash-and-burn of Lindsey Lohan (whose fall from grace started a couple of years ago; do the math) or Vanessa Hudgens, then perhaps the child's parents ought to be questioning their decision to encourage their kids to look to famous teen-agers as role models. Or to get too involved in the celebrity/fame-following thing. This has been a weird, weird trend for a while, and I don't get why parents buy into it. It's not as if some of the risks aren't obvious.

And yeah: I'm "old" (almost 47) and can remember the days of stigma. But I have a 7-1/2 year old, and so I CAN relate to what's out there.

I don't know that adults are much better off, in looking for love, validation or sex.

Respectability for a woman comes from how good a deal she made for herself.

Not being a virgin used to affect how good the prospective deal could be. I doubt it has any effect today.

A guy is still looking for sex, and if he winds up being needed as well, that is the woman shows him she's satisfied with him, he winds up loving the woman, which is what she wanted after all.

There are lots of ways that can fail at any age. If the woman's a teen idol, it's not likely to work out on first principles right off the bat. Maybe she figures the baby will love her for herself, the fanatasy of perfect love that she didn't stick it out to seek in her boyfriend.

Geez, Ann, at least "jeweejew" never attempts "dialect" in making a point. As long as Cedarford comments here, your "troll" policing has no credibility at all.

Ahh Beth, you don't understand, "Cedarford writes many interesting comments and is not trolling." Just because he is a raving lunatic abusive racist, it doesn't matter. He is a right-wing lunatic abusive racist who agrees with Ann most of the time, so by definition, he is not a troll.

He can wish people dead (and in fact encourage people to lynch me), call people traitors, and spew all kinds of eugenic, anti-semitic and racist nonsense but as long as he occaisionally writes something "interesting" (and you've got to hand it to Cedarford, he is rarely boring), he is okay with Ann.

Solutions, to high reproduction of undesirable portions of the population, low reproductive rates of the intelligent, the morality of teen relationships is complex and may of necessity have to be done in a non-democratic way to best order a state and it's society for the future and prevent it's decay, as Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore said.

And I hope these solutions include madatory sterilization for racist pricks like you.

perhaps the child's parents ought to be questioning their decision to encourage their kids to look to famous teen-agers as role models. Or to get too involved in the celebrity/fame-following thing. This has been a weird, weird trend for a while, and I don't get why parents buy into it.

reader, I agree. But I also remember faithfully tuning in to "The Monkees" when I was a kid, and watching the Beatles' cartoon. Our parents must have looked at both gruops and thought they looked stoned, but we watched anyway. Even H.R. Puffenstuff was one long hallucinogenic trip (puffing stuff????) I still remember Mama Cass in a bathtub full of fruit. I guess only the Archies were a safe bet, being virtual. Oh, and Josie and the Pussycats.

I agree with the idea that we infantalize teenagers. Throughout most of history, women were married and pregnant by the time they were this girl's age. If she wants to get knocked up and start a family, more power to her.

Nicholodian, however runs a children's networkd. Ms. Spears is employed as a child actor playing a child in a children's show. I don't doing that is compatable with being an expectant mother and an adult. Nicholdeaon needs to tell Spears "we are happy with your dicisions to become a knocked up tramp like your sister. We wish you well in your career choice. But, since you are now an adult, we are afraid that you can't be a child actor on our network anymore".

And I should add, cedarford isn't right wing; I think he falls into that old populist category that stretches itself to hold a wide range of ideas.

No, Cedarford is plainly and simply a Nazi (not even a Neo-Nazi). He has expressed undying admiration for the policies and practices of Nazi Germany (except for the Autobahn system). And today he has expressed a pechant for the Nazi system of breeding good Aryan children to create a master race while prohibiting the propagation of inferior stock.

I'm sure he secretly thinks concentration and extermination camps are a grand idea.

he has expressed a pechant for the Nazi system of breeding good Aryan children to create a master race while prohibiting the propagation of inferior stock.

A fine example of the genetic fallacy. Moreover, it's not a question of Nazi (or other) eugenics; Singapore merely wants its brightest and most talented citizens to marry and reproduce, but they're too busy working all day. Bright and talented people are the only natural resources that Singapore has.

Spritle: Speed you must hurry. There is a new entrant into the race. She is very dangerous.Speed Racer: Who is she?Spritle: They call her Britney Spears. She is driving a 1969 Pontiac GTO with two car seats facing the wrong way with the screaming babies in the back seat. She said that fear makes her car go faster. Speed Racer: How can I compete? What can I put my car that will engender the same degree of terror?Spritle: How about a naked Hillary Clinton in all her leather skinned glory and Mike Huckabee holding a bible with a cross painted over his shoulder on the back window.Speed Racer: Too late, that was already done in the Arkansas 500. Can’t we get something in the race that doesn’t have anything to do with Arkansas.Spritle: It doesn’t look that way.(Speed Racer, 2008)

Zeb: You consider a 6-year-old a young teen, or even a young tween,? You think encouraging the idolization of celebrity and and the lives of teens is a good thing for a first-grader? To everything there is a season.

But to each his own. What other parents choose to do is strictly not my business. However, I'm just not gonna be all that sympathetic to the plight of parents who encourage their young kids to watch tween/teen shows and follow teen celebrities, but then get all upset when one of those teens do a teen thing or get into teen-type trouble. Then we hear the cry: Bad role model! Bad role model! Well, why did you encourage that sort of role model to begin within? What purpose does it serve? Hell, I don't want my son acting even like a fine, upstanding teen-ager--because it would still be inappropriate. He's not a teen. And in my opinion, the teen attitude doesn't look good on younger kids, nor do I think it's healthy.

How'd you like it if your personal life was held up to be judged by the world?

I'm not a celebritney. If I chose to pursue fame, well, gossip is a trade-off that goes along with fame. Spears' Mom pimped them out to the world to make money. If she's pissed that we're talking about her daughters (I really doubt that she is), it's her own fault. If Jamie Lynn is pissed that we gossip about her, she should blame her mother.

As far as the topic, dang. A 16 year old gets knocked up by a 19 year old boy from church? If I were the father of the girl, I'd be furious. I'd want him charged. HE should know better. Let's demand a little responsibility from the adults in this scenario. I'm talking child support and everything else. Maybe not 10 years in prison, but 10 years probation and sex offender status.

FLS: Nickelodeon offers a combination of program for different age groups of young people. The target demos of different shows vary, and the shows are written in reflection of that.

Nickelodeon wants to be the safe haven

I disagree with the premise. It's not a "safe haven," and I don't know why on earth parents are expecting such a thing. It seems like an abdication of vigilance, in my view. Many will disagree, and that's fine. It's just my opinion.

The Zoey 101 audience are the six to twelve year old girls, and I have two daughters that fall into that range and watch the show (although my eleven year old is a more faithful watcher than my eight year old.) While that age group is Nickelodeon's audience, they still need to keep the parents of those viewers happy, and I am not happy. Ideally Ms. Spears should quit (or be allowed to quit) but given the her family's history I don't see that. Anyone want to bet if the show will be this Sunday night?

I question that's the intended target (on the six side), but OK, if you say so. All I can say is, I think it's pretty funny that people can get upset about the Vast Difference In Age between 16 and 18, but not 6 and 12. I mean funny-weird.

>>Speaking of forgiveness, a Christian virtue, it is the Christmas season, when we celebrate the birth of a child to a 14-year-old girl.<<

Non sequitur. Are you saying that BECAUSE it's Christmas we should view the Spears fiasco in some different light? Or that since it's Christmas, centered around the birth of Jesus to a young Mary, that we are to feel some sort of added compassion for young Ms. Spears situation? If I recall correctly, Mary WAS married at the time of Jesus' birth and the fact that she was young has absolutely no bearing as to events in the here and now of 2007, other than that to note that Mary had freely submitted to and was following God's will.

If you were 20 still living with your parents say, 40-50 years ago, you were either an invalid being taken care or vice versa.

Don't be ridiculous. My parents lived with their parents until their wedding day in 1955 (when they were 23 and 25). My dad had lived in the same room, which he shared with two brothers, from the day he was born until he got married except for two years in the Air Force. His brothers didn't leave home til they got married either. Same for my mom's sister.

Sure, Jamie-Lynn may have plenty of money to support the child and still work. But what about all the viewers, all the girls who may begin to think having a baby at age 16 is cool.

The issue I worry about is not so much that girls will think it is "cool", but that they will see it simply as something not to worry about, or take precautions against.

It is unfortunate, and more so for her because she gets to be the poster child (sadly accurate term) for her situation. So all the ills of society can be attributed to and blamed on her, just because she happens to be famous.

There's plenty of blame to go around here, not least Nickelodeon itself, for being a contributor to the culture of premature sexualizaton of young people.

Cancel the show? Or replace Miss Spears? The bottom line certainly is in question no matter what they end up doing. But any "message" sent by the network should be irrelevant. It should be parents who guide their children in how to think about these issues. We shouldn't be abandoning our children to be raised by media personalities, celebrities and television networks who are after all more interested in selling them things than in teaching them things.

Next on FOX reality: The Gravid Life starring celebrity pregnant unwed mothers. Jamie Lynn Spears, Nicole Ritchie, Hallie Berry and Flavor Flav star as these celebrity hosebags sit around the house, eat pickles and ice cream and bitch about the dudes who knocked them up. The first one to drop a rug rat wins $1,000,000 for any charity they chose except Planned Parenthood. Hosted by Shar Jackson and Ant with special appearances by New York, Brigitte Nielsen, Scott Baio, and Donald Trump.

Don't be ridiculous. My parents lived with their parents until their wedding day in 1955 (when they were 23 and 25). My dad had lived in the same room, which he shared with two brothers, from the day he was born until he got married except for two years in the Air Force. His brothers didn't leave home til they got married either. Same for my mom's sister.

Why? To me living with mom and dad in your 20s unless you're an invalid is ridiculous. Get a job and start becoming your own person.

Actually, the best way is to raise the child to live with TV, to put it into its proper context, and to understand it and regard it for what it is and for what it is not. As for my granddaughter, she doesn't particularly like TV. Zoey 101 a few times a week, and similarly for another Nickelodeon show, is about it for her. She is quite busy with tap dancing, swimming, and other activities.

And it was on the all news channel that I was watching, not Nickelodeon, where the news about Britney's 16-year-old little sister Jaime was shouted out, and my granddaughter was within earshot. Nothing objectionable on Nick to my knowledge. Is the news objectionable? Should the all news channel have refrained from covering the story? Naw. Well, mostly naw. They didn't need to sensationalize it and shout it out the tabloid way they did. But other than that, I'm blaming the parents. Not even Jaime so much. The parents.

This isn't the end of the world. These things and much more need to be explained to the child. This event just forces us to explain some things earlier than we wanted.

Geoff,"A 16 year old gets knocked up by a 19 year old boy from church? If I were the father of the girl, I'd be furious. I'd want him charged. HE should know better. Let's demand a little responsibility from the adults in this scenario. "

They had been dating for 2-3 years. The "real" adults (the parents) didn't do anything to stop that.

If you think the TV/celebrity culture is a contributing factor to the over-sexualization of younger kids and, later, bad choices young people can sometimes make (and I do think it contributes, among various factors), there's a very obvious thing you can do, at least while your kids are young.

"It's also possible that the couple is well-established and chose to have a baby, as many, many people throughout history have done at that age."

But what is more likely in 2007, Ann, that a sixteen year old has carefully planned to have a child at 16 or that a couple of teenagers got knocked up unexpectedly? From what I heard, Spears's mother wasn't in on the family planning.

"By the way, I hope no high schools are allowing their students to read "Romeo and Juliet.""

Is there some alternative version of Romeo and Juliet in which the consequences of R&J's behavior aren't disastrous? The one I know ends with a dual suicide that's unlikely to make kids think emulation is a good idea.

Um, Freder, the Nazis WERE populists, and mixed right-wing ideas (such as nationalism) with left-wing ideas (such as socialism

I don't consider genocide and extreme racial supremacist doctrine to be part of populism (not to mention starting wars that kill well in excess of 50 million people). That kind of sets the Nazis apart from Will Rogers or Alf Landon.

Why? To me living with mom and dad in your 20s unless you're an invalid is ridiculous. Get a job and start becoming your own person.

Then you would really hate Germany. Even today it is common to find multiple generations living in the same house.

Seriously, it is only within the last 40 years or so that young people had the financial means to be able to move out of their parents house before they married, or even after. My God man, people simply couldn't afford to get their own place, even if when they did have a job. Life was hard, wages were low and housing was expensive.

former law student said... Pogo, your source first states a number of caveats about pre-1950 sexual activity data, then attempts to sweep them all away with a "Nevertheless" that I find to be unconvincing.

So you give me an anecdote in place of actual data? That you find convincing?

You simply have no evidence that the rate of premarital sex was always and forever at the exact same rate as occurs now, in fact the data available since the Kinsey report also suggests the practice has been increasing in frequency for decades, as is unwed motherhood (sorry, single motherhood ...got to avoid the dreaded heteronormativity), as is the feminization of poverty in the last 100 years.

Host with the Most said..."Ann, what exactly do you think the consequences should be when you write: Why not extra forgiveness? What do you mean by that?"

I object to the columnist's argument that we should be more harshly punitive toward someone whose family has committed similar wrongs, as I said. I think extra forgiveness is in order, because the young person had less of a chance to learn how to behave.

PatCA said..."The analogy to the birth of Jesus or to Romeo and Juliet is off. Different times, different cultures, and especially different Fathers."

Same human body with genetically programmed urges. (Except we need to think of Mary as being above the mere humanity that afflicts us all and afflicted us most severely when we were teenagers.)

Beth: "Geez, Ann, at least "jeweejew" never attempts "dialect" in making a point. As long as Cedarford comments here, your "troll" policing has no credibility at all."

In fact, this is not trolling by my definition or by any common definition. Look it up. I'm not going to explain it every time Cedarford offends you. He's got a point of view and he isn't trying to derail the conversation. He is participating in good faith, and he's using some forms of expression that you find hateful. It is not the same as what the trolls I've banned were doing. If you don't like what he's saying, just argue with him. The ideas are there in the open to be argued with. That is not trolling.

exhelodrvr1 said..."Most of you, including Ann, seem to be missing the most important point. What would be best for the child?"

Reread what I said about sending the father to prison. And this underlies everything I'm saying about Spears. Too many people here are promoting a position that will encourage abortion.

M. Simon, The UPS man just dropped off the new re-release of Blade Runner with 5 discs, (1)the new 2007 final director's cut,(2)a "making of" disc, (3)the original 1982 theatrical, the 1982 international, the 1992 director's cut, (4) art and featurettes disc, and (5) a pre-release workprint. Packaging:Unique 5-disc digi-package with handle which is a stylish version of Rick Deckard's own briefcase. In addition, each briefcase will be individually numbered and in limited supply.* Lenticular motion film clip from the original feature* Miniature origami unicorn figurine* Miniature replica spinner car* Collector's photographs* Signed personal letter from Sir Ridley Scott (although I don't know how personal the letter can be, I don't think it's addressed to me by name...)Kewl Beans...

Zeb: You consider a 6-year-old a young teen, or even a young tween,? You think encouraging the idolization of celebrity and and the lives of teens is a good thing for a first-grader? To everything there is a season.

I missed this, so I'm answering it out of sequence. Have you ever raised a little girl? With my two now grown daughters, then plus helping out with my granddaughter, this is the third for me. Little girls love teenaged girls. I can't say why, just that they do. They idolize them. That's really the target market of Zoey 101, and that's who is really watching it. Little girls. Little 6-year old girls like my granddaughter. Don't believe me? Watch it and see who the advertisers are that fill up all the advertising slots. It's all little girl stuff.

Because they're being permitted to. What part of my points aren't you getting? You don't have to agree with them, but I don't see not getting them.

Kids are attracted to all sorts of things. They like all sorts of thing. So?

And Zeb--I'm sure you're going to think this is really silly, but here goes: I've always sort of thought being female--you know, being born female, being a little girl, being a female tween, being a female teen-ager & so forth--gives me at least a little insight into, well, being female. At different ages. That's before I even get to any other consideration.

Joanna Cassidy was smoking hot. Sexy voice too. Wouldn't have minded a little Jamie Lynn action with her back in the day if you know what I mean. Respectfully John, I can't bring myself to click on that link. I am all Spearsed out.

1. She keeps the baby to raise on her own and keeps her job,2. She keeps the baby to raise on her own and loses her job, and3. She kills the baby and keeps her job.

Adoption, anyone? Marriage? Sheesh.

Personally, I'd have a "for older kids only" 9pm informational thing with her, at about 5 months pregnant, with a bunch of other girls and women who've been through unmarried juvenile pregnancies -- and children that resulted from such unions, ranging in age from young (say, 10) to adult. And I'd work the storyline into the show, moving the show to a later-night period and only showing it on The N rather than on Nickelodeon proper. For crying out loud, the show is set in a co-ed boarding school.

I do think it's interesting that some people are advocating marriage as the solution to Jamie Lynn's problem. After all, her older sister, for example, tried that (before getting pregnant, even). From where I sit, things still didn't work out all that well. Could be just me, though.

Because they're being permitted to. Kids are attracted to all sorts of things. They like all sorts of thing. So? What part of my points aren't you getting?

There is a seeming infinite number of OTHER shows that my granddaughter would surely be attracted to but is screened out from even being exposed to, but Zoey 101 was not one of them because there was nothing objectionable to Zoey 101. What part of THAT are you not getting?

And Zeb--I'm sure you're going to think this is really silly, but here goes: I've always sort of thought being female--you know, being born female, being a little girl, being a female tween, being a female teen-ager & so forth--gives me at least a little insight into, well, being female. At different ages. That's before I even get to any other consideration.

I'll take that as a circuitous admission that you've raised no girls. Me, meanwhile, I've been a boy my whole life. Little boy, adolescent, young adult, old fart, you name it. But I've had no boys and have never raised one, and I would never deign to offer advice on parenting boys. My own experience as a boy, however, came in very handy in raising girls, especially teen aged girls, because, having been one, I know firsthand the utterly impure thoughts and intentions of those walking hormone secretions known as teen aged boys, when they came calling.

Pogo: with respect to her "show" now that her pregnancy is known, might as well let the show go on. The "entertainment media" will provide all the coverage of the pregnancy with or without the show. As to the second question, if I knew the answer to that I would not be here commenting on blogs. I'd be working at CDC. I simply havent got the remotest idea (and I suspect this rate will continue to rise, along with that of general fertitility, in part because of an increasing number of hispanics who do tend to have children a bit earlier); and with respect to (3) I don't think it is possible to return to previous values--they are out of the door; your question about mitigating the adverse impact of single motherhood, which correlates positively to all sorts of bad things, is a good question--and I don't know the answer.

I think extra forgiveness is in order, because the young person had less of a chance to learn how to behave.

I agree with this sentiment; I think neither Britney nor her younger sister have had any reliable guidance in life. The parents are, as I continue to say, pimps. They're a train wreck. They live off the work of their children, and anything the entertainment industry has asked of them, they've cheerfully allowed. There are people whose children are in entertainment who have managed to make some sort of normal life -- Elijah Wood comes to mind as an example. The Spears are not one of those families. So, my response is to feel sorry for this girl, and for Britney. They never had a chance.

As for Cedarford, Ann, I obviously disagree with your take. He absolutely derails threads with deranged tangents jumping from the thread topic to his rants on blacks, Jews and pedophiles. He just buries it in copious text, framed by intro and concluding paragraphs that are somewhat on target. As for engaging him? Not unless I had ready access to a decontamination unit.

The genie is out of the bottle, and absent some sort apocalyptic calamity, s/he isn't going back in anytime soon. It may be coaxed back in, but it's going to take generations to get that done.

As for your second question, it is a complicated social development. The movie industry beginning in the 20s, and thereafter the opening the work place for women, birth control, television, the "sexual revolution" of the 60s, abortion, no-fault divorce, etc. Prolly some others too. It all led to the breakdown of the family and, hence, the flowering of single motherhood.

People like to think that we are evolving to a better place socially than that of our forebears, and in some ways that is true. But to me it's obvious that in many other ways the level of our civilization has devolved.

jeff, money is a great thing, but these two girls are missing a childhood, and parents that care about their development rather than how they can be used as a mealticket. Money doesn't make up for that. I'd be willing to bet that Britney is bi-polar or has some other disorder in that category. Money just keeps her shielded from confronting that and starting treatment. Meanwhile mom and pop hang out in Kentwood at their palatial estate and deposit the checks that come in. They don't shield their kids from scrutiny, they sell the frigging rights to their stories! They're despicable. So, yes, I feel sorry for their children.

Fine. That's your judgment to make. Mine differs (depending on what age group; I just don't think "tween" starts at 6, and I think a lot of the tween-targeted shows aren't even particularly great for the youngest tweens, due to how that term is now being defined). Big deal.

I don't think that means there shouldn't be consequences - I do think she should lose her Nick gig. But, I won't claim that they should be operating with all the values and awareness that children raised by normal parents have to guide themselves.

Like Beth said, these girls have been pimped out from such a young age and to such lengths that it disgusts me. THEIR PARENTS are the ones who deserve the stigma, our ostracization and our condemnation. Not the very young girls who are completely warped.

They need to deal with the consequences of their actions, so that they (and the little girls who idolize them) can learn from them. But, they have my sympathy.

And, as someone else stated - Casey and Jamie Lynn have been dating for a few years. He was not an adult when their relationship started, and their relationship has had her parents' blessing all along. Once again, the blame should be squarely on the parents.

Yes, she was 14 and he was 17. Not sure what's so horrible about that...? I dated juniors and seniors as a freshman - and I was almost a full year younger than most of the kids in my own grade due to my on-the-cutoff birthday.

Not sure what's so horrible about that...? As a father and a former 17 year old boy I can tell you this: Plenty.

17 year old boys are the closest males come to dogs in the male lifespan. Not a sedate 10 year old spaniel, but a rutting insane 3 year old mutt tugging at his chain, trying to hump even inaminate objects.